Creation Science Rebuttals

Technical Journal (TJ)

Green River Formation and
the Flood

TJ, Volume 20, Issue 1,
March 2006

In an article in Technical Journal (TJ), young earth creation science meteorologist Michael Oard
once again tries his hand at geology, with an article explaining why the
Green River Formation (GRF) is a good argument for the global Flood of Noah.1 (The
article was also featured as the daily feature on the Creation Ministries
International website on 3 August 2006).

To explain why the GRF makes a good case for a young earth and a global
flood, Oard lists nine points which he claims supports this conclusion.

Tectonics

Oard refers to Psalm 104:8, with the mountains rising, and the valleys
sinking, to support his claim that tectonic uplifting and sinking of valleys
or basins fits the global flood model. He claims that this
tectonic scenario fits well with Flood tectonics during the recessional
phase of the flood. The secular, old age scenario also requires
tectonics for its model of formation for the GRF, so this argument cannot be
seen as exclusively in favor of a young earth explanation. It is "age
neutral."

Volume of Sediment

Oard claims that the vast amount of sediment, deposited rapidly, supports a
young earth position. He says "It seems that only the global
catastrophe of the Flood could account for so much sediment." Again,
old earth geologists have no problems here, as we also have the same amount
of sediment to account for, over vast ages of time. The volume of
sediment is also a neutral argument.

He goes on to claim that there are many horizontal layers with little
erosion in between (over 13 million layers in fact). This section is
a little confusing, as at first reading he is arguing against his own
theory. He says,

"If sedimentation were post-Flood from the surrounding mountains, one would
expect immense, thick alluvial fans and landslides tapering basinward away
from the mountains."

The answer is in the next section.

Massive Erosion

Oard notes that there has been a large amount of erosion in this area, hence
this is why there are no thick alluvial fans present. He states that
there are "erosional remnants", which are locations (mesas) not eroded away
like the rest of the material. These mesas are up to 600 meters higher
(Figure 10 in this article shows two in the distance). He claims
that...

"slow erosion of sedimentary rocks over millions of years does not make
sense, because these erosional remnants should have also been eroded away or
reduced greatly in size, especially since precipitation and mass wasting is
greater the higher the elevation and the steeper the slopes."

He fails to mention that these remnants, or mesas, are covered by a cap
rock, which erodes at a much slower rate than the soft sediments of the GRF.
Fortunately, I have a geologic map of Wyoming. The photo that he shows
was taken from northwest of Boar's Tusk, which means the mesas in the
distance are North Table Mountain and South Table Mountain, which are capped
by igneous rocks of the same age as Boar's Tusk. Since these intrusive
and extrusive igneous flows erode much slower, they cause these mesas.
If there were no cap rocks to cause this weathering pattern, then Oard's
statement would be true.

Oard also makes the following claim:

"Furthermore, sedimentation from higher areas should tend to fill up the
valleys with fairly recent alluvium. The current amount of alluvium in low
areas appears to be quite thin. The geomorphology of the area implies rapid
erosion over a short period of time."

The first sentence is correct, and there is recent alluvium present.
The rest of the argument makes no sense. Even if one would expect
there to be much more alluvium, the young earth model also erodes the same
amount of material, thus it should be present as well. If there is a
problem with too little eroded material, it is also a problem for the young
earth model.

Tropical and Subtropical Fossils

The GRF contains tropical fossils, such as crocodile fossils, and also
tropical plant fossils, such as palms. As Oard points out, in the
young earth model, this post-Flood environment is thought to be during an
ice age, and there should be no tropical fossils in this location. To
solve this dilemma, Oard proposes that the fossils were likely spread around
the earth in strong Flood currents.

This is likely, if there was a global flood. However, this also fails
to fit the evidence. If these tropical fossils were scattered by the
currents, then we would expect to find tropical fossils in every locale on
the planet. This is not the case. We find fossils buried in
their own ecosystems, and not scattered randomly around the world.
This argument is complete nonsense, even from a young earth perspective.
Oard should have realized this problem.

Fossils Indicate Rapid Deposition

It is true that many fossils indicate that they were buried rapidly.
Geologists recognize the role of rapid burial in fossil preservation.
However, not all fossils fall in this category. The main complaint of
young earth creationists is that fossils will rot quickly, unless they are
buried rapidly. Oard mentions this, and says that they will even rot
quickly on cold lake bottoms which are anoxic (no oxygen). This may be
true, but these are only two of the variables that leads to rotting fish.
Unfortunately, he relies upon research from John Whitmore, a fellow young
earth creationist. I cannot be certain, but Whitmore is probably
relying on the work of Garner (Creation Magazine, V. 19, Issue 3), who
relied on the work of scientists at the Chicago Natural History Museum in
1963. The samples in this case were lowered into a marsh (not a lake).
In a marsh, there is an abundance of organic materials. In a
land-locked basin such as formed the GRF, there was no marsh-type
environment. Other experiments and observations of actual decaying
objects in modern lakes indicates that they can indeed be preserved through
slow and gradual burial.2

Thick, Extensive Coal

Oard says that some of the basins of the Rocky Mountains have coal seams.
He says they are difficult to explain within the young earth creationist
model, but even more difficult in the old earth model.

Oard introduces a problem, offers no solution, and simply says the old earth
model has trouble explaining it. How is this a good argument for a
young earth?

Thick Volcanic Sediments in the Bridger Formation

This is another strange section, as he does not answer all the issues.
The Bridger Formation overlies the GRF. Oard claims that it and the
Washakie Formation (which overlies the Bridger) are mainly volcanic
sediments. While they do contain volcanic sediments, I cannot say for
certain that volcanics form the majority of their composition.
However, the formations are not strictly volcanic in origin. They also
contain other features such as marlstone and conglomerates.

Oard refers to a period of great volcanism, causing a volcanic winter.
This of course fits in with his theory of their being an Ice Age after the
global flood. However, as he points out, there are tropical fossils in
the Bridger, which causes a problem.

He suggests that there were floating log mats which was the source of these
tropical fossils. These are supposed to have floated into the area of
the Bridger Formation, where they were buried. This model also has the
same problem mentioned earlier concerning fossils. If there were
floating log mats, these tropical fossil plants would appear in every locale
on the planet. Instead, we find tropical plant fossils in tropical
locations, and desert plants in desert locations, and so forth. The
fossil evidence does not support Oard's theory.

He ends this section with an unanswered question.

Other Evidence

Oard finally presents a laundry list of other arguments, with no supporting
evidence. These items are the topic of other young earth arguments,
and thus rebuttals for them will appear elsewhere.

Conclusion

Oard claims that the GRF was deposited during the Inundatory Stage of the
Flood and eroded during the Recessive Stage. However, the evidence
that Oard presented left me wondering why he even bothers writing geologic
articles. He presents no valid evidence to support his position, and
at times leaves more questions for the reader to consider, without
attempting to answer them.

The standard geological explanation for the GRF is a much better fit with
the evidence than the contrived young earth position, which has been cobbled
together in bits and pieces. As a whole it is a very unconsolidated
theory.

2 Cotton, Gerald E. et al, 1987, "Preservation of
Human Tissue Immersed for Five Years in Fresh Water of Known Temperature,"
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 32:4:1125-1130

If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision
for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to
what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the
inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while
still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.

Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we
have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in
this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If
you are a young earth creationism believer,
click here.